I don't necessarily agree with creationists on this, but I did hear an explanation that made sense to me. When God created Adam how old was he? If he was created as a grown, mature adult he would have been an instant old at his creation. How old would he have appeared. If an autopsy were performed how old would a doctor determine him to be? You could carry on this logic to everything that was created.

Just to clarify, if you come from the presupposition that the earth occured naturally then dating procedures work. If you come with the presupposition that it was created, then dating procedures based on naturally occuring events just won't work. Again, not my postion, but I believe a logical one.

My point was that God created all the animals before he created Adam.

Regarding your later comment, I'm not convinced that animal-kind doesn't have other purposes that to be 'for mankind'.



Opps, my bad. I mis-understood you.

I think you are greatly mistaken here. I do not believe that the Koran teaches this. (And I don't think it is a helpful comment.)In fact, I believe Islam holds Jews and Christians in special regard as devout, non-Islamic religious peoples.

All three religions have a lot in common, to include monotheism and the worship of the God of Abraham.

- WG

So then God is incapable of doing evil because he is incapable of thinking that way.

That is inconsistent with the Bible, though, where it says that God created everything, including evil. And if Satan was a fallen angel, then God created Satan too. A being incapable of thinking or doing evil would be incapable of creating anything capable of doing evil, and certainly would be incapable of creating evil. But I don't want to argue this point because it's just another reason why religion makes sense to some people but doesn't make any sense to me. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.


Oh no, I never said there was no inherent judgement attached to a person who doesn't follow Humanist standards. Of course there is inherent judgement from your fellow human beings. If you deviate from Humanist standards you are likely to suffer negative social consequences. If you deviate from them a lot, you will have trouble getting along with other people and suffer severe social consequences possibly including isolation and lonliness.

But Humanism tries to encourage people to do the right thing because it's the right thing, not out of fear of punishment. Of course, if punishment is necessary to enforce the rules of society then it's necessary. But ideally, people should be taught to WANT to be good, not just avoid punishment.

You see I think the difference is that Christians and many other religious people want to believe that life is fair, so they want to believe that good people will be rewarded (either here or in the afterlife) and that bad people will be punished (either here or in the afterlife).

Although Humanists believe we're all GENERALLY better off if we try to be good, we don't believe that every good act will be rewarded and every bad act will be punished. We don't believe the universe has any sense of fair play, only humans do. There is no karma except in a general social sense. Bad things happen to good people and sometimes bad people get away with doing bad things. And we all suffer the same fate when we die regardless of how good we've been. So the reason to do good has to be separate from reward or punishment. And that reason is the desire to influence our own social environment in a generally positive way, so that we're generally happier and better off even if occasionally others get away with hurting us or a good deed is punished. I guess in a way it is a reward system but not a strict good deed = reward everytime sort of thing.


It's not a matter of rejection, it's a matter of what's true and what's real. We're not convinced that such perfection exists in the first place, so from a Humanist standpoint there is nothing to reject. Humans have a natural tendency to believe what is most comforting, but that often leads us to believing things that are not true. Some people have a stronger desire than others to avoid believing in falsehoods. Thus, we have believers and nonbelievers.


Because that system is only more perfect if God exists. If God doesn't exist, then the whole system is based on falsehood.

But your depiction of Secular Humanism is still not accurate. We are NOT free to choose our own interpretation of what is good in personal relationships unless you believe that we are all free to choose our own facts. Let's use MB as an example. In their research the Harley's found that "Love Busters" such as disrespectful judgements, selfish demands and angry outbursts are harmful to marriage. This was not based on armchair theorizing but on research. This is fact. Those things are bad for marriage. You could decide that selfish demands are good for your marriage, but you would be wrong and your marriage would suffer for it whether you choose to recognize the harm it causes or not. Because it is a fact that those things are harmful to the marital relationship, and because it is a fact that married people need good marriages in order to be happy and get along with each other, then it is a fact that according to Humanist ideals Love Busters are morally wrong. It is not an opinion, it is not a matter of taste, it is fact.

Now of course, humans don't have perfect knowledge of right and wrong, so occasionally we may have a wrong belief about what is right. We may try to do the right thing, but it will have unintended negative consequences for someone else. But that doesn't change the fact that we were wrong at the time. Our intentions were good, but the act itself was wrong. Such mistakes are inevitable but the number of mistakes can be reduced by factual knowledge, such as the Harleys' research.


There is no system that forces you to do the right thing in every circumstance. Even in Christianity, you have free will. Nothing forces you to do good. And statistically, Christians are no more likely to do the right thing than people of any other religious persuasion, including atheists.


There is no substitution. You are trying to interpret Humanism within a Christian box. It doesn't work. You have to go outside the box. In Humanism, there is no object of worship. People are not worshipped. We know people are imperfect. We don't try to substitute anything for God. Sure, it would be cool if a perfect person with perfect knowledge of right and wrong existed but we're not convinced any such being exists. It would be cool if I had the power of invisability and flight, but believing in it would not make it so.


Because God doesn't exist. LOL! Sorry, couldn't resist. But that honestly is the answer that seems most likely to me.


Because we don't have perfect knowledge.


Who determines that 2 + 2 should equal 4? Who determines that when you cut me, I'll bleed? A fact is a fact whether you believe it or not.


Well I don't really want to get into an argument about freewill. I don't believe in it and I don't agree that it would be a good idea even if it existed. Let's just agree to disagree.


No, what is wrong is wrong, regardless of what anyone thinks about it. But people are imperfect and sometimes we are wrong about what is right and wrong.


No, I don't believe that at all. We all influence each other whether we want to or not. And no one determines or establishes what is right and wrong. We discover it, just like we discovered the existence of gravity.


What I meant is that there is no process of excommunication from Humanism. And there is no Humanist Pope who defines what Humanism is. The Affirmations are a description of what most Humanists believe. The description will fit some Humanists more than others, and some of the Affirmations will be interpreted by one humanist a little differently than some other humanist. For example, eating meat is a controversy within Humanism right now. Maybe someday us meat-eating humanists will discover that we were wrong to kill animals for food. But right now there is no consensus.


Well then the standard is don't hurt people, or in situations in which you'll cause harm no matter what you do, you have to cause the least harm. No Humanist would say it's okay to hurt people. And all Humanists believe torture is absolutely wrong no matter what. Not even in a ticking bomb scenario - and that's a standard Christians can't claim because you all disagree on that one. And of course rape is wrong no matter what. And discrimination is wrong, even if the person is gay. That last one is a standard Christians can't claim because you all disagree on that one.


We need other people. We need a certain amount of freedom to be happy. We need a certain amount of safety to be happy.


I have no idea what you're talking about here.


Humanists don't believe that about human nature.


Humanists don't view people as basically sinful. We view them as basically good, although like I said, I interpret this to mean basically pro-social. Obviously people are capable of doing wrong, but I don't think we are essentially bad.


Just because something perfect doesn't exist, doesn't mean we can't imagine it. I can imagine the perfect person who would never make mistakes and always do the right thing and ask myself what would this person do? That doesn't mean I have to believe this person is real.


That's where they are wrong. Humanists do not accept the idea that people are essentially bad.

Aph - As the following listing of Bishop Spong's beliefs clearly show, he may claim the title of "Christian," but he has jettisoned every fundamental belief that makes a Christian a Christian. I could go back into history, for example Arianism, for similar thoughts, but there really is no need to do so at this time.

For me personally, count me as one who does not, based upon his own statements, consider Bishop Spong to be a born again Christian believer.





Despite the fact that the above quotation was taken from a supporter of Bishop Spong, the inherent bias of the author is revealed clearly in his last statement "as they would rational thought."

Nowhere do Christian advocate "evicting" rational thought. This is simply the age old foolish argument "that to be a Christian means to leave reason at the door."

It may make the speaker feel "superior," but it is a biased opinion and nothing more. It certainly is not fact.


Here is concisely what I think is going with Bishop Spong:

"I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel - which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to prevert the gospel of Christ. But eve nif we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other that what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned! Am I now trying to win the approval of men, or of God? Or am it trying to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ. I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ." (Galatians 1:6-12 NIV)

"First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation." But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and with water. By water also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men." (2Peter 3:3-7 NIV)

[color:"red"]"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man." [/color] (Matthew 24:36-39 NIV)

If I "have to" evaluate the gospel according to Bishop Spong versus the gospel according to the Apostles Paul and Peter, and the truth of Jesus Christ himself, I will side with the latter 3.

What Spong wants to do is to "recreate" God in the image of Man. Not a unique desire to say the least.

As it is fair for Myschae to say that she is NOT a Secular Humanist nor a Christian nor a follower of any other faith, and it is "fair" to "judge" that she is NOT a Secular Humanist, a Christian, etc. by her own statements, so it is fair to "judge" that Bishop Spong is "something" but he is NOT a Christian.

This does, however, present a bigger "problem" or "dilemma" for Espicopalians because Bishop Spong is an Episcopalian and uses that to claim that he is a "Christian." His views on Morality are not the issue. His view of God and Jesus Christ ARE the issue since he CLAIMS to be a Christian.

If the intention of bringing Bishop Spong into the discussion is to have a supporter of Secular Humanism, I would agree that he seems qualified. If it is to bring in the idea that a Christian can deny God and Jesus Christ and still BE a Christian, I have to disagree because of the very clear teaching contained in the Word of God as to what a Christian believes.

Aph, just a quick note to let you know that I found your last post very interesting. I'll have to set aside some time to discuss your stated thoughts some more because they are truly fascinating to me.

This is an incorrect representation of all three of the eastern religions mentioned. All three believe that man is inherently good when they are born. What happens after they are born is what causes some to reach enlightenment and others not to reach it.

changed - Let's not belabor this point, okay? If you don't like the term "not good by nature" then perhaps "flawed" would be a more acceptable term.

Either way, they point to their concept of "perfection" that may be "attainable" by man. The underlying assumption is obvious, man is flawed, not perfect, and begins life at varying "levels of goodness." Some begin with very little "goodness" and lots of "badness," and others start somewhere higher up the "goodness scale." The "punishment" in Hinduism, for example, is that if you don't do better this time around than you did the last time around, you get "punished" by being reincarnated as some lower "caste," or perhaps as far back as some other creature.

If they don't achieve the level of "goodness" required by their religion, they are eternally locked into a state of repetitive trials, most likely never reaching that final state of "goodness."

In fact, there is no way for anyone to KNOW if they actually achieved it because they would "cease to exist" and the cycle of reincarnation would end without their knowing it. In short, there is no "security," as it is based entirely upon a "works based" philosophy and the "works" of the individuals themselves.

The point of Christianity is that NO person is "good enough" on their own because of their basic flawed nature (sin nature) and it takes the imputation of the "goodness" Christ to them to achieve salvation and reunion with the Standard of "Goodness," God.

We can argue all day long about "how much good" is "enough good" to make the grade on the "goodness scale." But IF people came about by way of evolution, there is NO "goodness scale." There is only the "here and now" and no reincarnation for "another attempt."

The "goodness/badness" is a function of a Creator and HIS goodness as the "measure."

Aph wrote:
I do not think Jesus taught that life is fair in this way.

In Matthew 19 it is said that a rich man who lived in obedience to the commandments asked Jesus what he had to do to recieve eternal life. Jesus told him to give his wealth to the poor and to come and follow him. The man declined. Despite his otherwise impressive good deeds, his heart seemingly wasn't in the right place. (Aside: I am not claiming Jesus expects everyone to give all of their financial assets away).

In Matthew 20 Jesus teaches a parable to describe heaven. A vineyard owner needs to hire laborers. He hires some at 6:00am and agrees to pay them a fixed rate (say $100). The owner later finds more laborers at 9:00am and noon and hires them agreeing to pay them fairly. Later he hires more helpers at 3:00pm and hires them. And still later at 5:00pm. At the end of the day (6:00pm) he pays the workers from 5pm $100. Similarly the late morning and mid-afternoon workers get $100. And so on with the 6:00am workers. The 6:00am workers complain that some worked only for one hour but got the same rate; don't they deserve more? The landowner (i.e., God-figure) tells them they agreed to work for the $100 and if he wants to give those who worked less the same about, what business is it of theirs and he isn't being unfair.

Apparently heaven isn't fundamentally about who does the most/best good deeds.

In Matthew 21 Jesus tells the chief priests and religious leaders that "tax collectors" (who were known for greed, unfairness, and being anti-social) and prostitutes are entering the kingdom of heaven ahead of them.

- WG

I don't want to belabor any point, but you are presenting a grossly simplified and flawed interpretation of all of these religions. I'm sure if someone mischaracterized the doctrines of Christianity that you would correct them. Your understanding of eastern religions is completely and utterly incorrect.


This is the underlying assumption of Christianity and yes it is obvious. It is also the complete opposite concept of most Eastern religions. In Taoism, Buddhism, and Hinduism the concept of "salvation" or "enlightenment" is based on realizing and aligning yourself with your true nature, which is GOOD, not sinful, not flawed.


Either is acceptable to me. Both are wrong.

Yes, I would "correct" mistatements about Christianity, as with offering of Aphaeresis of Bishop Spong as someone who claims to be a Christian but who rejects all that IS what defines a Christian. Spong, like you, wants consider all beliefs and/or religions as "the same." Essentially this means that all are true or all are false. In all cases it denies that there IS one really true TRUTH.

Is Hinduism the "true" faith?
Is Buddhism the "true" faith?
Is Taoism the "true" faith?
Are ALL "Eastern Religions" true, even though they believe fundamentally different things?

"Your understanding of eastern religions is completely and utterly incorrect."

I beg to differ. It is possible my understanding of them is incorrect, but they ALL put the emphasis on Man himself/herself. They deny the one true God that has revealed Himself to us in Bible. "You shall be like God, knowing good and evil." They are all the same, Man can become God through his/her own efforts. They all appeal to Man's pride in self, i.e. "you are all good, you just need to discover your own goodness no matter how long or how many lifetimes it takes you." The "flip side" is that if you choose to be "bad" you get a "do over," erasing the past mistakes and starting over fresh and still good. Nevermind that what you DID was pure evil and bad. Yin and yang. Tug of war. A two-headed coin. And let's not even touch on the concept of Karma.




I understand this, changd4ever. No matter how sincere the belief, it can be sincerely wrong. The OBJECT of the Christian faith is Jesus Christ and what He has done for us that we are incapable of doing on our own. The object of these Eastern religions, and many others, is Man himself/herself. That people reject Christ is no great surprise. That people want to say and believe that any other belief is "just as good as, if not better than" Christianity is as old as time. But that doesn't make it true.

Christianity does not stand on an individual's ability. It stands on the real, live, person of Jesus Christ. In ALL other religions (including Agnosticism and Atheism) they rely solely on what the individual DOES for himself/herself. Christianity, on the other hand, relies solely on what Jesus Christ did FOR us to "save us from ourselves."




That is your opinion and you are entitled to it. I think you are wrong too, but again, opinions are a dime a dozen. it does not change TRUTH.

Jesus Christ, not Buddha or anyone else, claimed to BE God and that is what sets Christianity apart from all other "manmade" beliefs. ANYONE "could" claim to be God, but Jesus not only made the claim, He "backed up" the claim.

People can, and they do, CHOOSE to reject Jesus Christ, preferring to "do their own thing," and God will let them. But that does NOT change the truth nor does it change the truth of who Jesus is and what He, and He alone, did for us in order to provide us with reconciliation with God.

The "issue" is not an issue of morality. The "issue" is that mankind cannot know God its own. God has chosen to reveal Himself to mankind, and has most emphatically done so in the person of Jesus Christ. God "finalized" that revelation in the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead and provided "proof" to hardhearted mankind that there IS life after death; conscious, living, thinking, physical life. God is the God of the LIVING, not the dead and not the "annihilated."

I wasn't saying you are wrong if you believe that man is flawed. I was just saying you are wrong in saying that the religions mentioned believed that man is flawed.

MUST READ!

Question: "What is secular humanism?" Why is secular humanism so dangerous, and why is it becoming so popular?


Answer: http://www.gotquestions.org/secular-humanism.html

I have never said all beliefs are the same, nor do I believe that.
I don't believe any of them are completely true, but I think there are elements of truth in all of them. Regardless of whether they are true or not, I think they deserve to be accurately described if they are to be used in a religious discussion.


Again, this is not an accurate representation of these religions. Let's take Taoism, because it is the one that I have studied most extensively. To say that Taoism appeals to man's pride is laughable. Taoism teaches that man should put himself last. It teaches that the ego is what seperates man from the Tao. It teaches that only by submitting your egotistical desires to the "ultimate path" or the Tao can you reach a oneness with the Tao.

As far as Yin and Yang, it is not a "tug of war". Taoism teaches that everything has different aspects to it. The problem is that instead of viewing and appreciating the thing itself, man many times elevates or judges one aspect of the thing to be higher or better than another aspect. This is saying that some part of the Tao is bad or wrong, which goes against the principles of Taoism.

Taoist teachings read much like Jesus's teachings. The sermon on the Mount could be included in a Taoist text and completely agree with other Taoist teaching. The concepts of "the least will be first", "the meek will inherit the kingdom of heaven", "turn the other cheek" are all in complete agreement with Taoist teaching. Pride is probably more important in Taoism, because you can not possibly align yourself with the Tao if you have pride.

I realize you believe strongly that the Bible is the inspired word of God and any religion that doesn't teach that is wrong. That is your right. I am not trying to convert you or even convince you of the merits of Taoism or any other religion. I just want to make sure that the teachings are accurately represented. Your description of Eastern religions would be like me explaining Christianity like this.

"Christianity is a religion that believes God came down and lived among men, but was killed by religious leaders. Followers must eat crackers and drink wine which they believe are transubstantiated to the body and blood of Jesus. By doing this they go to heaven. Otherwise they go to he11."

Although there are elements of truth in my statement, there are certain distortions and it is a gross oversimplification of the Christian belief system. I think other religions deserve the same respect as Christianity. They should be discussed respectfully and accurately portrayed.

woundedgentleman,

You may be right about what Jesus taught. However, the beliefs of Christians today are not based solely on what Jesus taught. It is mixed in with some of what Paul taught, some of what they want to believe, and some of that "civil religion" I described earlier. Because of televangelists, there are even Christians who believe that being a good Christian will bring them financial success. I find this especially odd given that many of Jesus' teachings almost sound like socialism.

I'm surprised you didn't bring up the story of Job. A lot of unfairness in that story. This is completely off the topic but there is a great movie, if you like dark comedy, about a Job-like character who sets out to get even with God by breaking all the commandments one by one. It's called "Commandments" (not 10 Commandments, but just Commandments.)

FH,


No, I would not say that about Spong at all. There are many beliefs that he thinks are both wrong and destroying Christianity. I can understand why you would say he's not Christian because the God he believes in is a non-theistic God. His theology is a bit radical. However, I think he is right on the mark when he talks about morality and the meaning of life.


No, that's not it at all. Humanism and possibly other belief systems, though I don't know which ones, rely on what the individual does for humankind.

Christianity is about individual salvation. What can *I* do or believe to get into heaven even though my friends and some family members are destined for ******? Oh, maybe they'll convert if I nag them long enough but if not I guess they deserve ******, so just worry about saving your own butt. Christianity is all about salvation of ME,ME,ME and not about saving the world because after all, this world is just a dress rehearsal for the afterlife. It will all be destroyed when the rapture comes anyway.

Of course not all of Christianity is like that because some Christians don't believe in ****** but then you'd probably say they aren't real Christians.


FH, We have a lot in common. I think all those religions are manmade too - I just include one more in the list: Christianity.

Connan,

I have to admit that for a site that is critical of Secular Humanism, it's description of SH is surprisingly accurate, except for maybe a few things.

For example it describes Secular Humanism as a rejection of authority but that's a bit exaggerated. Rather, we are skeptical of authority. Of course, there are two kinds of authority: power-based and expertise-based. The first kind would be political leaders, law enforcement, etc. We are most skeptical of them because they have power that can be abused, and we are concerned about the dangers of blind obedience to authority. The second kind includes experts. No one person can know everything so we do rely on experts for a lot of information. However, we know that sometimes experts can be wrong, especially when there are other experts who disagree or when that expert is making a claim outside of his or her area of expertise.

The page mentions "Yogananda, the founder of the Self-Realization Fellowship" but I can't comment on that. I'm not familiar with Yogananda. But other than that, it gives a fair description of Secular Humanism.

It also says:

I have to disagree with this. Slavery, although it is sometimes still practiced, is no longer legal or socially acceptable in most of the world. Discrimination and prejudice still exist, but they are not considered socially acceptable (except against a smaller list of minorities than in the past) and so are expressed in more covert forms because people now recognize that it's wrong.

Universal basic human rights, although still violated, are at least a concept to aspire to, whereas in the past there was no such thing. When human rights are violated it is usually done secretly because we now recognize that it's wrong. Yes, there is still much hypocrisy in the world but the first steps to securing human rights have to include invention of the concept, expressing the concept and getting people to agree, at least publicly, that it's a good idea. The Muslim world is behind the rest of us on this, but I think that eventually Islam will either die out or be dragged into the same century as the rest of us.

Progress is slow, but we are getting there.

PS to all: I am tickled pink that this board censors out 4ell as a bad word. IMHO, the concept of ****** represents the worst that Christianity has to offer so I find this hilarious.

Interesting way you have of "respecting" the beliefs of others.

As for the autocensoring of some words by the system softward, you might find additional chuckles in some of the words the system "chooses" to replace with asteriks and some that it let's through.

I've run into many of these over the years.

Not intending to "apply" the term to anyone, but solely for the purpose of illustrating how the system software "allows" some potentially offensive terms and "disallows" others let's just list a few and see how the system "thinks."

Slut
****** (w h o r e)
Bimbo
Ugly
Butter
[censored]
Titilating
Tits
[censored]
****** (4 letter "C" word used to describe some females)
Homo
Queer
****** (4 letter "F" word used to describe sex in a "vulgar" way)
idiot
pervert


The list can go on and on.

That you find something "hilarious" is expected when it applies to Christianity in particular. Scoffers and mockers are expected, but that doesn't make their "ideas" correct either.

Civil discussion is the objective, not the mocking of others. Civil discussion of different beliefs is the objective, not the mocking of the person who holds a particular belief.

"Offensiveness" is most often an emotional reaction on the part of the "hearer" or the intended "target" or the word selection and the context in which they are used.

The thought crosses my mind that we are NOT very similar. We, as human beings MAY have some "human" thoughts in common, since we were all created by God and God wrote His moral code into the hearts of all of us and gave each of us the "free will" to choose to behave "morally" or not. But we are "worlds apart" on the issue that "really matters."

It seems pointless to spend more time going around in circles when there are others who could be helped who are seeking help in humility and the knowledge that they can't do it on their own.

So, perhaps a final post or two regarding the current topics of discussion that you and changd4ever have raised, and then withdraw from the mental flagellation of issues that are diametrically opposed and without resolution this side of the grave.

changd4ever - This seems like being obtuse. The opposite of "perfect" and "pure" is FLAWED, not "good" or "good enough."

Mankind WAS created GOOD, in fact of all things created only Man was considered "Very Good." SIN is what caused the flaws and sin is what all people have been born with ever since. "Getting back" to a state of "goodness" is what Mankind has attempted to do on its own ever since, but the flaw of sin is NOT something that Man can eradicate on his/her own, it is a part of our nature. It can only be removed by the one who has the power to "recreate", not to keep reworking the same flawed material. Without the power to separate the flaw from the good, there is no way that Man can "operate" on himself and remove it, especially since he/she most often can't even see all the "sin flaws."

That Man might have the ability to rid himself/herself of all things, including pride, is itself very prideful. "See, how good I am. See how I have earned annihilation (salvation) myself!" "Man is a god who can do anything if only he doesn't have any flaws to impede or defects. But when that level is attained, I no longer can be of any use to anyone because I cease to exist as a person."

My point exactly.

You reject these religions but want to appropriate "parts" of them because YOU like some parts and reject other parts that don't suit what you like. That's called "fence sitting" and selective reasoning.

"I think there are elements of truth in all of them."

Yes there are, in the same way that dinosaurs DID exist. But the truth of where they came from, how they got there (embedded as fossils), etc. is NOT even close to be the same thing. But I'll not belabor that analogy unless you want more clarification. "Wrong" thought does not become "right" thought regardless of how many people want to believe it or how many people are "sincerely believing" that God doesn't exist and that life arose from non-living chemical "soup" all on it's own.

I'm not trying to be obtuse or belabor any point. Maybe I'm not explaining myself very well. Sticking to Taoism, Taoism believes that man is "perfect", "pure", "exactly and precisely right" at birth. It does not believe man is just "good" or "good enough". That is my only point. I realize you don't believe this is true. I just want you to stop characterizing the other religions as believing in the concept of man is flawed. This is a common belief in western religions, but it is much less common in eastern religions.



I can't argue with this line of reasoning if you believe in the original sin and fall of man argument. If you don't believe in that, though, it just doesn't make sense. I've said before I believe the fundamental difference in Christianity and many other religions is in the concept of the inherent goodness of man. I believe man is inherently good. All other beliefs follow from that. If I am wrong about that everything else I believe is wrong too.


Interesting. I see your point. I'm sure some might think that way. If they do then they most assuredly would not be aligned with the Tao, but I don't think many would actually think like that. It's not like these people who genuinely seek to follow the Path of the Tao are trying to find a short-cut to salvation. It doesn't work like that. As I said before I think Taoism is the least prideful religion of any that I have studied. It doesn't view anyone as any better than anyone else. It doesn't value achievements at all. Any achievement would have happened with or without any individual because the achievement is the Tao. You would more likely find a Taoist master homeless in a park than you would giving lectures or writing books.


This is actually the closest to Taoist teaching that you have come. I would alter your statement to read like this.

"Man is the Tao and when he aligns himself with the Tao he reveals his true nature."


Maybe this is true in Hinduism or Buddhism, but Taoists don't teach reincarnation per se. And a Taoist would say you are not really of any use to anyone anyway. To think you are is prideful. The Tao is of use and the Tao is perfect. You are perfect as you are the Tao and the Tao is perfect. If you are not here the Tao will become no less perfect.

I guess we'll just have to disagree on this. I realize that humans crave black and white answers. Our brains seek out patterns and we become very agitated when we can not discern these patterns. I try not to buy in to an entire philosophy just so I'll feel better. If I see truth in something I will recognize it. Just because a philosophy or religion has some truth does not mean I have to accept the other parts that appear untrue to me. I see some truth in almost every religion. I think some are closer to the truth than others. I think some contain truth, but the untruths they contain so overbalance the truths that I have a hard time accepting any of it. I still try to take the parts that I believe are true and apply them. This "fencesitting" argument is IMO complete nonsense. It makes a good talking point because the visual image is so strong. Thinking about it logically; however, when someone adopts pieces of different philosophies how is that equate to sitting on the fence? I'm obviously not trying to ingratiate myself with all of the other religions. I'm stating that I think all of them are wrong. I'm not waffling between two philosophies. I'm creating my own thing that "God" or "Tao" or "Buddha" or "The Ultimate Truth" put in my nature to search out. I guess I could categorically reject any philosophy that I do not believe is 100% true, but that seems stubborn and nonproductive to me. Everyone picks and chooses in every other walk of life, but with religion its "Your either with me, against me, or a fencesitter". I would add that there is a fourth choice, a seeker of truth and not Dogma.